"Mr. Boehner's October Miracle"

Unit: The Constitution

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/mr-boehners-october-miracle.html

Synopsis:
The Editorial Board of the New York Times explores the changing political environment in the House of Representatives after the resignation of Speaker John Boehner earlier this week. Self-described as the "grown-up" reconciling the child-like legislators arguing over bills, he claims that the destructive antics of the hard-liner "Tea party toddlers" in the House ultimately resulted in his exit from office. In terms of prospective legislation, in his last few days in office Boehner has the liberty to "revive" previous bills that his Republican constituents disagreed with. Considering his alliance to the Republican party, his actions as Speaker were tirelessly analyzed by both extremes of the political system and varying conservative ideology; now Boehner can act without political ties since his career is next to over. If he decides to call a vote on a certain piece of legislation passed by the Senate in 2013, the ability to restart a real political conversation on immigration reform with the view of a solution is possible for the future if the bill moves on for President Obama's consideration. Although only a conjecture, the Editorial Board additionally speculates on Boehner's great potential for the revival of dead legislation based on his association to the Roman Catholic church; Pope Francis commented on immigration to the Congress and at various points during his stay to emphasize the Christian values of respect and kindness.

Analysis:
Considering the Editorial Board's reliance on inference, their hypothesis over Boehner's proximate actions in the House of Representatives are not ensured to occur. However, strong evidence is provided in the article; the Speaker no longer has to satisfy the entire Republican party or give much of a care to the interpersonal relationships within the House between representatives. If you think of the theory behind the separation of powers, it is frustrating to hear that one man's fear of political strife in calling a vote on legislation essentially retarded the issue of immigration from further progression. The bill was labelled as "wide-scale" and "comprehensive", a stride forward in the amelioration of lives of 11 million lives if implemented. The power to direct conversation over such a polarized issue in one individual seems unfair at the governmental level. Additionally, the allusion to Boehner's Christian values guiding his decision to energize immigration reform is interesting to consider; government and church are not interconnected as per the separation between church and state, as well as Article VI of the Constitution that emphasizes the lack of religion's role in politics. The introduction of religion, especially at a young age, adds to an individual's moral sense and personal opinion. It is not wrong that Boehner bases his opinion on experience, as we all do, but rather Pope Francis' relationship to any possible legal actions with immigration reform poses an interesting question: is it fair for modern figureheads of religion to act as lobbyists?